ETHICAL DILEMMAS

The organization development (OD) literature yields little practical adviceor

philosophical helpon resolving ethical dilemmas that OD consultants face. What
discussion there is frequently begins with Kants categorical imperative (DeGeorge,
1986; Jaspers, 1957), in which one must treat others as ends rather than solely as
means.

Jaspers writes, Act as though the maxim of your action, through your will, were to
become a universal law of nature (p. 65). In short, people should not use other
people for their own purposes.

Snell (1986) proposes that the best way for consultants to deal with ethical
dilemmas is by discussing them with other consultants at the time they arise. In a
context of trust, consultants can evaluate and criticize one anothers ethical criteria.

Gellermann, Frankel, and Ladenson (1990) suggest that learning to practice

ethically is a developmental process. They describe the importance of developing
ones ethical fluency (p. 64)which involves understanding and commitmentas
a preparation for rational decision making that is based on a more structured form
of problem analysis and ethical analysis. The consultant develops ethical sensitivity
through intuition and reflection on his or her beliefs, values, and hypothetical or
experienced ethical dilemmas. This leads to the consultant consciously choosing
his or her values and ethical standards. The decision-making model rests,
ultimately, on clarifying ones personal values and learning to apply them in a
systematic fashion. McLean, Sims, Mangham, & Tuffield (1982) conducted an
interview study of actual OD practices and discovered that the reality of OD differs
significantly from what appears in OD theory and texts. OD consultants reported
pushing clients toward certain purposes, actions, agreements, and conclusions.

DeVogel (1992) conducted thirty-four interviews and surveyed 182 OD consultants

to determine which ethical dilemmas occurred most frequently in actual OD
practice. The survey pool was a random sample of members of the OD
Professional Practice Area of the American Society for Training and Development
(ASTD). A questionnaire containing thirty-nine potential dilemmas was used, and
respondents were asked how often they encountered these dilemmas.

Of the thirty-nine dilemmas listed, thirteen were reported by at least 40 percent of

the respondents as occurring occasionally, frequently, or almost always. The
thirteen, in decreasing order of frequency, are discussed in the following sections
1. An Illusion of Participation. Employees are given the illusion of participatory
decision making when managements mind is already made up. Seventy-one
percent of respondents reported that they face this dilemma at least occasionally.
The most common methods of handling it were confronting the client (44 percent)
and negotiating an alternative approach (18 percent). Few respondents refused to
cooperate or terminated the relationship based on this client behavior.

2. Skip the Diagnosis. I am asked to skip a needs assessment or diagnosis and

just do an intervention (for example, training or team building). Sixty-five percent
of respondents reported that they face this dilemma at least occasionally. The most
common methods of handling it were negotiating an alternative approach (35
percent) and confronting the client (25 percent). Eight percent of the respondents
refused to comply. None reported leaving the relationship. 3. Inappropriate
Intervention. I am asked to conduct an OD intervention (e.g., team building) which
I think is inappropriate for the organization. Sixty-one percent reported this
dilemma as occurring at least occasionally. Negotiation (32 percent), action
research (30 percent), and confrontation (28 percent) were the most common
methods for handling it. Few respondents refused to comply; none reported
terminating a relationship.

4. Stretch the Limits of My Competence. I try a new intervention with a client that
might stretch beyond my competency or skill. Fifty-eight percent of respondents
faced this situation at least occasionally. The most common methods of handling it
included using action research (43 percent) and taking independent action (24
percent). Some respondents (17 percent) reported that they did not consider this to
be a problem. Very few (14 percent) discussed it with their clients.

5. Coercion. Employees are forced to participate in an intervention against their

will. Fifty-seven percent of respondents reported confronting this dilemma at least
occasionally. The most common methods to handle it were to negotiate (37
percent), confront the problem (23 percent), or gather more information using
action research (23 percent). None of the respondents refused to cooperate or
terminated the relationship.

6. Political Pressure. I find my behavior shaped by the internal policies of the client
organization. This dilemma was reported by 57 percent of the respondents as
occurring at least occasionally. There was little consensus on how to deal with this
problem. The most frequent approaches used by respondents were using action
research (23 percent) and taking independent action (23 percent). Others
negotiated (18 percent), responded indirectly (17 percent), or simply did not
consider it to be a problem (15 percent).
7. Informed Consent. Employees are drawn into an intervention without really
knowing what they are getting into. Fifty-six percent of respondents reported that
this occurs at least occasionally. They dealt with this problem through negotiation
(34 percent), action research (21 percent), independent action (18 percent), or
confrontation (18 percent). None of the respondents reported refusing to cooperate
or leaving the consulting relationship. Five percent did not consider this to be a
problem.

8. Client Has Misled the Consultant. I discover that the client has misled me about
the nature of the problems in the organization or his or her willingness to
cooperate. Fifty-four percent of respondents reported that this occurred at least
occasionally. The most common methods of handling this problem were
confrontation (46 percent) and action research (25 percent). Few respondents
terminated their relationships because of this problem.

9. Misuse of Information. A manager asks me for information with the intent to use
that information for administrative purposes (for example, promotions, dismissals).
Fifty percent of respondents reported that this occurred at least occasionally. There
was no clear consensus on how to approach this dilemma. The most frequent
response was to refuse flatly (23 percent). Other respondents negotiated an
alternative approach (17 percent), confronted the problem (15 percent), or
conducted action research (13 percent). Fifteen percent did not consider this to be
a problem.

10. Violate Confidentiality. A manager asks me to divulge information that I have

explicitly promised not to share with others (for example, what happened in a team
building session). Forty-seven percent of respondents report that this occurred at
least occasionally. Of that group, 47 percent handled it by refusing to comply, and
an additional 29 percent confronted the problem by saying they did not like it
(without necessarily refusing).

11. Priority of Interests. I struggle with whose interests should take precedence:
managements or employees. This was at least occasionally a problem for 46
percent of respondents. The most common methods of handling this problem were
action research (40 percent) and negotiation (26 percent).

12. Role Expectations. I get caught between my view of the consultants role and
the expectations the client has about what my role should be. This dilemma was
experienced at least occasionally by 44 percent of respondents. Negotiation (38
percent) and confrontation (31 percent) were the most typical methods of handling
the problem.
13. Conflict with Co-Consultant. I disagree with a co-consultant about what to do
with the client. This dilemma was reported as occurring at least occasionally by 43
percent of respondents. They were most likely to negotiate (44 percent), conduct
action research (27 percent), or confront the problem (22 percent) in order to
handle the problem.